I think you make growth sound easier than it is. Sure, for many who have come over to Substack with a big following, they have seen strong and solid growth. For someone not in that position, growth is extremely difficult, and especially having walked away entirely from social media. I can’t stand the social media promotion and effort it takes to try to get maybe one new subscriber, however, growth through Substack alone is also very difficult unless I want to spend most of my time, referring and cross-promoting and commenting, which is beginning to feel like social media all over again. You do a great job promoting the big fish on Substack. It’s us small guys and gals who struggle more than I think you realize.
Fascinating to see how many people believe growth is a zero sum game. I started with a very small audience (about 100 people, most of whom I knew IRL) and I've grown that audience 15X in just over two years. I wanted to grow faster, but let's be honest, doesn't everyone want to grow super fast? The thing is, *most* of that growth came by making connections with other writers on Substack -- through cross-promo, recommendations, and leaving thoughtful comments on their pieces. By far and away, the richest growth opportunities came from engagement with writers in my general category -- humor. We've grown together, not at each other's expense.
Your team has consistently improved the writing experience here month by month, and helped return to the internet what made being online so exciting 25 years ago. Namely creativity mixed with discovery and camaraderie.
I’ve much gratitude for your ethos and proactive approach. And here’s to 2023.
So instead of an algorithm, the big-name writers just get to boost up their big-name friends. How does that help me, exactly?
This is a joke. Substack has some of the worst internal discovery I've ever seen in an online service. Yes, it's great if you're already famous and have a following you can bring over, but that's the thing - it's all external. For all the high-flung talk about creating something better (always suspicious when a company is appealing to your emotions first and foremost, by the way), you have created something that is firmly anchored into the existing systems.
Basing your entire discovery process on shoutouts from people with big followings is ridiculous. Say what you will about recommendation algorithms, but they do give newer, smaller creators a puncher's chance when they don't have a lot of resources or a preexisting fanbase. As a fiction writer, I know that my best chance of success is to hope that Stephen King mentions me somewhere, but that can't be the basis for discovery.
Building a service around catering to people with big audiences is fine and probably even wise, but don't do that and then spend all your time pretending that you're making some kind of difference.
The Chat feature is a step backward, I think. The whole point of Substack is for us all to SLOW DOWN and read, think, relax and not feel a need to pop off like corks on cheap cold duck. We all enjoy adulation, of course, and like to know we are pleasing others. Other than that, I am really enjoying it all.
This is interesting. I'm not opposed to the idea of Writer Referrals but I do have some reservations:
1. This could certainly help recruit new newsletter writers to the platform. If done with care, it could work but there is the concern that current writers/publishers go for quantity instead of quality in their recruitment efforts if they are incented via receiving an automated Recommendation.
2. I do feel that the automated Recommendation could cheapen the value of the existing Recommendation "economy", especially if these Recommendations are made by people who are really not familiar with each other's work. And if we get a flood of new recommendations will the bar be raised so that 100 Recommendations today will be worth 125 Recommendations 6 months from now?
3 a. Using this recruitment process makes the two parties beholden to each other, which should be considered in terms of a long term relationship.
3 b. Here's the big one for me: I think that newsletter writers who use Writer Recommendations really need to think through the use of this new tool carefully. The key consideration, from my perspective, is that the Recommender needs to be super transparent about how they will benefit from this transaction and that the Recommendation is automated. And so this Recommendation will be out there for a LONG time. So the person accepting the recruitment offer needs to be well educated about this obligation and I hope that any zeal for getting more Recommendations does not overshadow that this should be a trust based, integrity infused action.
Those are my thoughts, happy to hear other points of view.
The incentive that my friends will recommend me has definitely incentivized me to bring at least two super writers to the platform and tell everyone I know to join. I’ve also built relationships with acquaintances who I found out had Substacks and swapped recommendations. Even thinking of starting a Substack club for 10 writer friends w high quality pubs and w 3k + followers each to help promote each others work
Dear Substack, I like you. I am new, and I am small (under 50 subscribers) but have already seen the positive effects of the growth loop. When someone mentions or recommends me, it gives me a boost that makes me want to pay that generosity forward. And I always do. And with each of these simple transactions of support I have seen growth. Maybe it's only one or two subscribers. But it's something. I had no following before I came SS. Just brought my family and close friends with me. I did have to brave a few comment sections before I started making connections on the platform. But I did make them. And I've been seeing slow (sometimes very slow) but steady growth since then. ❤️
I just started writing on your platform a few months ago. I haven't cross posted to social media because I'm so tired of trying to cut through the clutter and dealing with the never-ending barrage of ads and scams. I just added the ability to subscribe. I subscribe to the theory, if you build it, they will come. Not the theory--the phrase from the movie Field of Dreams which has a catchall meaning which is pretty self-explanatory. I think the more product we produce, the more readers and subscribers we will get. I appreciate your platform and this post giving us tips and I understand the need to make money. What's been most helpful to me is letting my friends know individually that I am writing on your platform and sending them a direct link. I am trying to share my newsletter in a more organic way. I just thought I would share.
Sounds like a cool feature but do writers have the ability to control what is on their referral credits?
What if I refer a writer to the platform and then I find out that the writer is creating something that’s completely different from what they said when I referred them for? Or maybe they decide to create a parody account for my own writing?
I should have control over what I do and don’t take credit for. I’m happy to refer writers to the platform but I might not want automatic credit for what the writer does. Or I might want to remove it later.
New writer here! Although I do feel as if it is easier to gain subscribers on Substack than say a place like Youtube, or starting my own website, my growth has been slow. I think this is just a problem with all forms of media, you have to have a following to get more followers, yet how do you initiate a following in the first place? I know many others have this dilemma, and I would love to hear your thoughts.
I know I'm not the only one who is disappointed in the direction Substack is taking now. I think what I liked most about Substack when I came over from Medium was how different it was from that whole competitive, club-like atmosphere over there. I'm a writer, first and foremost, not a social media groupie, which is what this is beginning to feel like.
"Like me and I'll like you" is far removed from the original newsletter model, which is what appeals to me most, mainly because I would rather concentrate on my writing than on hawking my work in a vast crowd of others hawking their works to each other.
As Linda said below, those of us with small subscriber bases don't stand a chance against those who come to Substack with a built-in readership, and now we'll have to try to compete against those who relish the idea of this kind of competition and will spend hours a day working on the give-and-take required to rise to the top.
I know you're working to build Substack into a bigger and better venue for writers, but there is another side to what you're proposing. In an effort to escalate the competition among writers--always a dangerous game--you've opened it up to quantity, not quality.
This may be better for your bottom line, but how, really, does it benefit those of us who are still struggling to build a following by writing what they would want to read? How will they find us, now that much of it depends on how well we play the game?
I think everyone should be on Substack—either as a creator, reader, or community member. A platform that encourages users to elevate and empower one another is a net positive—for individuals and society.
Imagine if Substack was as "essential" as Facebook.
Incentives, gamification, and share tools (like this one) move us in small steps closer to that tipping point.
I think you make growth sound easier than it is. Sure, for many who have come over to Substack with a big following, they have seen strong and solid growth. For someone not in that position, growth is extremely difficult, and especially having walked away entirely from social media. I can’t stand the social media promotion and effort it takes to try to get maybe one new subscriber, however, growth through Substack alone is also very difficult unless I want to spend most of my time, referring and cross-promoting and commenting, which is beginning to feel like social media all over again. You do a great job promoting the big fish on Substack. It’s us small guys and gals who struggle more than I think you realize.
Fascinating to see how many people believe growth is a zero sum game. I started with a very small audience (about 100 people, most of whom I knew IRL) and I've grown that audience 15X in just over two years. I wanted to grow faster, but let's be honest, doesn't everyone want to grow super fast? The thing is, *most* of that growth came by making connections with other writers on Substack -- through cross-promo, recommendations, and leaving thoughtful comments on their pieces. By far and away, the richest growth opportunities came from engagement with writers in my general category -- humor. We've grown together, not at each other's expense.
You folks are kick-ass.
I’m heading into my 3rd year on SS.
Your team has consistently improved the writing experience here month by month, and helped return to the internet what made being online so exciting 25 years ago. Namely creativity mixed with discovery and camaraderie.
I’ve much gratitude for your ethos and proactive approach. And here’s to 2023.
So instead of an algorithm, the big-name writers just get to boost up their big-name friends. How does that help me, exactly?
This is a joke. Substack has some of the worst internal discovery I've ever seen in an online service. Yes, it's great if you're already famous and have a following you can bring over, but that's the thing - it's all external. For all the high-flung talk about creating something better (always suspicious when a company is appealing to your emotions first and foremost, by the way), you have created something that is firmly anchored into the existing systems.
Basing your entire discovery process on shoutouts from people with big followings is ridiculous. Say what you will about recommendation algorithms, but they do give newer, smaller creators a puncher's chance when they don't have a lot of resources or a preexisting fanbase. As a fiction writer, I know that my best chance of success is to hope that Stephen King mentions me somewhere, but that can't be the basis for discovery.
Building a service around catering to people with big audiences is fine and probably even wise, but don't do that and then spend all your time pretending that you're making some kind of difference.
The Chat feature is a step backward, I think. The whole point of Substack is for us all to SLOW DOWN and read, think, relax and not feel a need to pop off like corks on cheap cold duck. We all enjoy adulation, of course, and like to know we are pleasing others. Other than that, I am really enjoying it all.
God bless all of you and Merry Christmas.
This is interesting. I'm not opposed to the idea of Writer Referrals but I do have some reservations:
1. This could certainly help recruit new newsletter writers to the platform. If done with care, it could work but there is the concern that current writers/publishers go for quantity instead of quality in their recruitment efforts if they are incented via receiving an automated Recommendation.
2. I do feel that the automated Recommendation could cheapen the value of the existing Recommendation "economy", especially if these Recommendations are made by people who are really not familiar with each other's work. And if we get a flood of new recommendations will the bar be raised so that 100 Recommendations today will be worth 125 Recommendations 6 months from now?
3 a. Using this recruitment process makes the two parties beholden to each other, which should be considered in terms of a long term relationship.
3 b. Here's the big one for me: I think that newsletter writers who use Writer Recommendations really need to think through the use of this new tool carefully. The key consideration, from my perspective, is that the Recommender needs to be super transparent about how they will benefit from this transaction and that the Recommendation is automated. And so this Recommendation will be out there for a LONG time. So the person accepting the recruitment offer needs to be well educated about this obligation and I hope that any zeal for getting more Recommendations does not overshadow that this should be a trust based, integrity infused action.
Those are my thoughts, happy to hear other points of view.
The incentive that my friends will recommend me has definitely incentivized me to bring at least two super writers to the platform and tell everyone I know to join. I’ve also built relationships with acquaintances who I found out had Substacks and swapped recommendations. Even thinking of starting a Substack club for 10 writer friends w high quality pubs and w 3k + followers each to help promote each others work
Dear Substack, I like you. I am new, and I am small (under 50 subscribers) but have already seen the positive effects of the growth loop. When someone mentions or recommends me, it gives me a boost that makes me want to pay that generosity forward. And I always do. And with each of these simple transactions of support I have seen growth. Maybe it's only one or two subscribers. But it's something. I had no following before I came SS. Just brought my family and close friends with me. I did have to brave a few comment sections before I started making connections on the platform. But I did make them. And I've been seeing slow (sometimes very slow) but steady growth since then. ❤️
I just started writing on your platform a few months ago. I haven't cross posted to social media because I'm so tired of trying to cut through the clutter and dealing with the never-ending barrage of ads and scams. I just added the ability to subscribe. I subscribe to the theory, if you build it, they will come. Not the theory--the phrase from the movie Field of Dreams which has a catchall meaning which is pretty self-explanatory. I think the more product we produce, the more readers and subscribers we will get. I appreciate your platform and this post giving us tips and I understand the need to make money. What's been most helpful to me is letting my friends know individually that I am writing on your platform and sending them a direct link. I am trying to share my newsletter in a more organic way. I just thought I would share.
Sounds like a cool feature but do writers have the ability to control what is on their referral credits?
What if I refer a writer to the platform and then I find out that the writer is creating something that’s completely different from what they said when I referred them for? Or maybe they decide to create a parody account for my own writing?
I should have control over what I do and don’t take credit for. I’m happy to refer writers to the platform but I might not want automatic credit for what the writer does. Or I might want to remove it later.
New writer here! Although I do feel as if it is easier to gain subscribers on Substack than say a place like Youtube, or starting my own website, my growth has been slow. I think this is just a problem with all forms of media, you have to have a following to get more followers, yet how do you initiate a following in the first place? I know many others have this dilemma, and I would love to hear your thoughts.
Step ahead of you on this one, Substack. I’ve already referred quite a few friends😄
I know I'm not the only one who is disappointed in the direction Substack is taking now. I think what I liked most about Substack when I came over from Medium was how different it was from that whole competitive, club-like atmosphere over there. I'm a writer, first and foremost, not a social media groupie, which is what this is beginning to feel like.
"Like me and I'll like you" is far removed from the original newsletter model, which is what appeals to me most, mainly because I would rather concentrate on my writing than on hawking my work in a vast crowd of others hawking their works to each other.
As Linda said below, those of us with small subscriber bases don't stand a chance against those who come to Substack with a built-in readership, and now we'll have to try to compete against those who relish the idea of this kind of competition and will spend hours a day working on the give-and-take required to rise to the top.
I know you're working to build Substack into a bigger and better venue for writers, but there is another side to what you're proposing. In an effort to escalate the competition among writers--always a dangerous game--you've opened it up to quantity, not quality.
This may be better for your bottom line, but how, really, does it benefit those of us who are still struggling to build a following by writing what they would want to read? How will they find us, now that much of it depends on how well we play the game?
I think everyone should be on Substack—either as a creator, reader, or community member. A platform that encourages users to elevate and empower one another is a net positive—for individuals and society.
Imagine if Substack was as "essential" as Facebook.
Incentives, gamification, and share tools (like this one) move us in small steps closer to that tipping point.
Whoa, wait, transparency in the growth algorithm of a social media website???
The Recommendations feature has brought me 10k subscribers—nearly half of my 22k mailing list! Thank you, Substack!! 🙏💓🤗